Изображения страниц

serious charge lies against the "church just share in ecclesiastical matters, and as by law established." especially their ancient and most precious right of choosing their own pastors and teachers.

1. Our first church principle is, THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. And we dissent from the Church of England as a secular, not a spiritual, institution; under the control of the civil government; and avowing, (in the Prayerbook,) as the basis of the authority of its articles, and the bond of its uniformity, that the Sovereign is "supreme governor of the Church of England."

2. PURITY OF COMMUNION AND DISCIPLINE, as essential to the well-being and efficiency of a Christian church, is our second principle. We dissent from the Church of England as a worldly society; in which even the attempt to discriminate and separate the church from the world is abandoned.

3. APOSTOLICAL ORDER in the government and administration of the church is our third principle. No facts are more certain than these: that, in the New Testament, bishops are identical with elders; that sometimes, if not always, there was a plurality of bishops in one church; that each church was a distinct and complete society, free from all external authority but that of the apostles, and that even when, after the time of the apostles, the bishop was distinguished from the elders, he was still only the president and shepherd of one church, not a prelate charged with the oversight of many. We therefore dissent from the Church of England as unapostolical in its entire constitution and administration.

4. THE RIGHTS OF THE LAITY furnish our fourth ground of dissent. We dissent from the Church of England, because it denies to the people their

5. CONFORMITY WITH SCRIPTURE in doctrines and ceremonies is an essential duty of every Christian church. We dissent from the Church of England, fifthly, because in its formularies, its catechism, and some of its articles, doctrines are taught, and practices enforced, which we believe to be contrary to the word of God; and also, because an authority is claimed for these human compositions, which is due to inpired Scripture alone.

6. THE UNITY OF THE TRUE CHURCH oF CHRIST, embracing all true believers within its pale, is our sixth church principle. It is everywhere earnestly taught in the New Testament. But in order to bear witness to it, we are compelled to separate from the Established Church. We dissent, therefore, from the Church of England, lastly, because! it is a schismatical community. By its exclusive pretensions; by substituting outward uniformity for spiritual unity; by excluding from the Lord's table many pious Christians, and from its pulpits many faithful and duly authorized ministers of Christ; by the decrees of its canons, and by the teaching of the majority of its ministers, it ignores the existence of other bodies of Christians, and violates and sets at nought the unity of the body of Christ.

From an institution that is controlled by the secular government, impure in its discipline, unapostolical in its order, and unscriptural in many points of doctrine and practice; that withholds from the Christian laity their just rights, and schismatically refuses to hold communion with large portions of the ca

[blocks in formation]


THE Confessors at Augsburg, before the mighty emperor Charles V., surrounded by Roman legates, bore this striking testimony amongst others: "The power of the bishops has reference only to eternal things, is exercised only by the minister of the Word, and does not trouble itself with political administration. The political administration, on the other hand, is busied with everything but the gospel. The magistrate protects, not souls, but bodies and temporal possessions,-he defends them against all attacks from without; and by making use of the sword and of punishment, compels men to observe civil justice and peace. For this reason we must take particular care not to mingle the power of the church with the power of the state. The power of the church ought never to invade an office that is foreign to it; for Christ himself has said, 'My kingdom is not of this world; and, Who made me a judge over you? It is thus that we distinguish the two governments and the two powers, and that we honour both as the most excellent gifts that God has given here on earth." What would these men have said to the appearance of English bishops in the senate-house, and of English clergy with the swords of state and justice?

On this confession D'Aubigné thus comments:-" With what wisdom, în particular, the confessors of Augsburg protest against that confusion of religion and politics, which, since the de

plorable epoch of Constantine, had changed the kingdom of God into an earthly and carnal institution! Undoubtedly, what the confession stigmatizes with the greatest energy is, the intrusion of the church into the affairs of the state; but can it be thought that it was to approve the intrusion of the state in church affairs? The evil of the Middle Ages was, having enslaved the state to the church, and the confessors of Augsburg rose like one man to combat it. The evil of the three centuries which have passed away since then, is to have subjected the church to the state; and we may believe that Luther and Melancthon would have found against this disorder thunders no less powerful. What they attack, in a general sense, is the confusion of the two societies; what they demand, is their independence. I do not say their separation; for separation of church and state was quite unknown to the reformers. If the Augsburg confessors were unwilling that things from above should monopolise those of the earth, they would have been still less willing for things of earth to oppress those from heaven."-D'Aubigné's Reformation.


"In the conduct of our Lord we behold a holy patriotism personifiedthe love of country embodied :-' I am not sent,' said he, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;' intimating how gladly he would have become the Shepherd of Israel. Where did patriotism ever exhibit a nobler burst of sorrow than, when on Mount Olivet, he beheld the city, and wept over it, and said, O Jerusalem! Jerusalem! how often would I have gathered thee,

as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not.' Whose patriotism ever endured what his did?toils, reproaches, unceasing persecution, ignominious death,-yet saved his latest breath to say, Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.' He had but few offices to bestow; but they were the highest out of heaven; and these he bestowed on twelve of his countrymen according to the flesh. He had but one gift to impart-but, oh! it comprehends every other-the gift of eternal life! and this he directed to be offered to his country first, beginning at Jerusalem." -Dr. Harris' Sermon on Christian Patriotism.


"If a foul blot is to be wiped from a nation's brow-like that of slavery,

their hand is the first to remove it. If they unite to send forth their agents into distant lands-it is to civilize the aborigines of their colonies, and to lift their foreign dependencies in the scale of morality. If they impart instruction to the rising race at home-it is that kind of knowledge calculated to render its recipients the most useful members of the community. If they assemble together-they meet not in scenes of dissipation to corrupt the morals of society, but to elevate its character, and to promote its highest welfare. In short, if there be any efficiency in prayer, any value in the blessing of God, then is the Christian the true benefactor of his land; for on him it devolves to offer that prayer, and to draw down that blessing.”—Dr. Harris, ut suprà.

The Letter Box.



FELLOW-CHRISTIANS,-In my last let- | bishop of Dublin rose in the House of

ter I gave you a few extracts from different numbers of the Quarterly Review, on the present enslaved condition of your church. I turn now from the testimony of your most influential periodical, to that of some of the most exalted personages in the Episcopal Church. Hear some of your own bishops on the points in question.

The Bishop of London, in one of his charges, delivered to his clergy, I think, in the year 1842, says:

"We are, in some respects, trammelled and impeded by our connection with the State."


Lords, to present a petition.
petition was signed by more than two
hundred members of the Established
Church in Ireland; among whom were
the Bishop of Kildare, and several of the
most respectable of the Irish clergy and
laity." And what favour do you sup-
pose the petition asked? Nothing more
nor less than this,-that the Church
might be allowed to attend to its own
affairs. The petitioners stated,—

"That every society, in order to be in a safe and efficacious state, should have a legislative government of some kind; and that there had virtually

On Tuesday, July 4, 1843, the Arch- been no such government for more

[ocr errors]

than a century for the church established by law, except the houses of Parliament: they therefore prayed that their lordships would take such measures as might seem to them expedient, for remedying the evil arising from a want of a church government for the united church of England and Ireland."

In confirmation of the facts stated in the petition, and in support of its prayer, the archbishop affirmed, that "There might now be said to be a total absence of a church government; and all his right reverend brethren, he believed, were agreed in the necessity of supplying such a deficiency." His grace of Dublin was followed by throw them off. the Bishop of Ripon, who said: "There was an anomaly in the church, which did not exist, and never had existed, in any other society whatever-namely, that of having no power of self-regulation to accommodate itself to those changes which take place in society."

Well might the bishop call this an anomaly. Look at it; think of it; weep over it. Here is a church stripped of its liberties; and, prostrate in the dust, uttering its lamentations over “a total absence of church government." It has wealth; it has bishops; it has deans, prebends, archdeacons, and a long list of ecclesiastics beside; it has the Queen at its head, nobles as its patrons, and everything earthly to give it power and influence of a certain kind: but of the power which, as a church of Christ, it ought to have prized above all price, it has absolutely none; and of the spiritual freedom, which should have been its brightest glory, it is utterly destitute. Its degradation is incomparably greater than

that of any other church in the coun-
try. The poorest Primitive Methodist
church in the kingdom, in having the
power to govern itself and execute its
Saviour's laws, is in possession of a
scriptural right, a religious privilege, a
moral dignity, compared with which
all the pomp and glitter of your es-
tablishment are "less than nothing,"
and worse than worthless.
Your case
is not that of slaves who, from long
familiarity with their bondage, have
lost sight of its degradation, and ceased
to pant for freedom. That would have
been bad enough; but, in some respects,
it is now more melancholy still. You
feel your chains, and yet hesitate to
You wish for liberty,
and yet will not claim it as your right;
but bishops, priests, deacons, laity, all
go as suppliants to the House of Lords;
and then bow down, and beg of a num-
ber of godless men, that they would
give you permission to do your duty
and obey your Lord. Is this a seemly
position for a church of Christ? Is
this maintaining his high prerogative
to rule in his own house? Is this
"standing fast in the liberty where.
with Christ hath made you free?"
Why, the respect due to manhood
ought to have been enough to preserve
the petitioners from an act so undig-
nified; and the respect due to the
church, to Christianity, to Christ, ought
to have led them to shrink from it with
instinctive shame and repugnance.


In 1844, there was "no small stir" your church about the colour in which your ministers ought to preach. Some of your bishops decided in favour of white, and others said it ought to be black. To get this knotty point settled, some of your friends presented a memorial to the Archbishop of Canter

bury, requesting him to call a meeting of the dignitaries of the church, in which a uniform interpretation of the meaning of the "rubrics" was to be agreed on and published. Some of the clergy of Devonshire joined the movement. and signed the memorial. This drew a letter from the Bishop of Exeter, addressed to the Dean of Exeter, under date of October 19, 1844, in which his lordship says:

"If the proposal were acted on by his grace the archbishop and the bishops of his province, it would bring them, I fear, one and all, under the very heavy penalties of the law. Without the special permission of the Crown, such a meeting, for such a purpose, would be absolutely illegal. This you may think to be very hard-perhaps it is hardbut such is the law of the land, as stated by Archbishop Wake after very grave inquiry."

thought it; from the man who digs your graves and rings your bells, up to his grace of Canterbury, you are all bound, hand and foot, with the iron fetters of human law.

A recent event has made the subordination of your church to the civil government, apparent to many who were unwilling to admit it before. Towards the close of the last year the Archbishop of York died. Of course his place must be filled. Who were to elect his successor? The clergy or bishops in his province? No; they had no more to do with it than the towncouncil of York, or the members of Mr. Parsons' church in that town. The Prime Minister alone had the power of determining who should fill that high office; and his choice fell on the Bishop of Hereford. By the removal of that bishop from his see another vacancy was created. The choice again lay in Here, then, you have the double the hands of the Prime Minister, and testimony of Bishop Philpotts and Arch- he exercised it. Dr. Hampden, the bishop Wake-a testimony not formed Regius Professor of Divinity in the in haste or ignorance, but after very University of Oxford, was the man segrave inquiry-that the highest digni- lected to be the new bishop. To keep taries in your church were not at up a show of electoral power in the liberty to meet together for the pur-church, it has always been customary pose of determining the meaning of to send the nominee of the Crown to rubrics, which they themselves had the dean and chapter of the diocese, sworn to observe and enforce. Mark that they may elect him. This is reparticularly what it was they were de- quired by law; and yet the dean and sired to meet for: it was not to alter chapter have no more power in the anything in the rubrics-it was not to affair than you or I have. They must add a word to them-it was not to elect the person nominated by the take a word from them,-it was only Crown, and no other; and if they fail to say what they do mean as they are to do that, they expose themselves to at present printed in your Prayer-book; penalties that would ruin them. In and they dare not meet even for that, this case, a large party in your church without the special permission of the objected to Dr. Hampden. No less Crown-that is, of the Prime Minister than thirteen of your bishops signed a for the time being. Why, really, your memorial, addressed to Lord John Rusbondage is more terrible than I had sell, praying his lordship not to force

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »